Pregnant Smokers and Drinkers

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Very well. It looks like we are starting to reach some sort of consensus among people who don't believe that non-viable fetuses are entities with rights.

Now for those who do think such fetuses are persons with rights. What say you all? Why so silent on this matter?

One thing more. If the woman has decided to have an abortion, surely drinking, smoking, crack use, whatever, has no bearing. On the other hand, if she wants to have the baby, is she accountable to the State for her behavior during the first trimester if this behaviour leads to a "damaged" child?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
One thing more. If the woman has decided to have an abortion, surely drinking, smoking, crack use, whatever, has no bearing. On the other hand, if she wants to have the baby, is she accountable to the State for her behavior during the first trimester if this behaviour leads to a "damaged" child?

I think we have already resolved that the no1/Skipper viewpoint says No.

Do you think differently? I might. That is, even accepting that the non-viable fetus has no rights, if the woman chooses to both addict the fetus to crack and carry it to term, it is conceivable that the mother should be held criminally liable. After all, the resulting person has suffered the same injustice, regardless of when the crack consumption took place, even if it was before that resulting person obtained his personhood.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I think we have already resolved that the no1/Skipper viewpoint says No.

Do you think differently? I might.

I might too, because of such things as intent, prior warnings and so on.
EDIT Which is what you said in your post.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I think we have already resolved that the no1/Skipper viewpoint says No.

Do you think differently? I might. That is, even accepting that the non-viable fetus has no rights, if the woman chooses to both addict the fetus to crack and carry it to term, it is conceivable that the mother should be held criminally liable. After all, the resulting pe ...[text shortened]... ack consumption took place, even if it was before that resulting person obtained his personhood.

Would you also hold criminally liable a set of parents who had a genetic predisposition to some terrible disease (we'll call it "Ivanhoeitis"😉 but decided to have a child anyway? Say the child is born with Ivanhoeitis; it has suffered an "injustice" and its parents knew that they were increasing the risk that the child would suffer this "injustice" but disregarded the substantial risk "recklessly" or with "depraved indifference". Are the Ivanhoeitis carrying parents criminals?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Would you also hold criminally liable a set of parents who had a genetic predisposition to some terrible disease (we'll call it "Ivanhoeitis"😉 but decided to have a child anyway? Say the child is born with Ivanhoeitis; it h ...[text shortened]... ed indifference". Are the Ivanhoeitis carrying parents criminals?

No, for their behavior (except perhaps copulation) didn't influence the outcome; on the other hand if a woman decides to have a baby in spite of being an alchoholic, but otherwise of sound mind ,then she is liable for the outcome, because she willingly exposed her child to a known danger.
Didn't we do this in the deaf thread?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Would you also hold criminally liable a set of parents who had a genetic predisposition to some terrible disease (we'll call it "Ivanhoeitis"😉 but decided to have a child anyway? Say the child is born with Ivanhoeitis; it h ...[text shortened]... ed indifference". Are the Ivanhoeitis carrying parents criminals?

I don't think so, and I'm not sure that I actually endorse my above speculation either. That's why I started this debate - it's sort of a conundrum to me.

I don't think handicapped children are necessarily victims of injustice by virtue of their being born handicapped. However, if a parent has the choice between allowing a child to develop naturally (including whatever natural genetic defects come into play) and choosing to do something that will bring great harm to the child once born, then that child has suffered an injustice.

Genetic defects are an instance of the legalist's notion of an act of God. A flood victim has not suffered an injustice. Crack addiction is not an act of God.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
No, for their behavior (except perhaps copulation) didn't influence the outcome; on the other hand if a woman decides to have a baby in spite of being an alchoholic, but otherwise of sound mind ,then she is liable for the outcome, because she willingly exposed her child to a known danger.
Didn't we do this in the deaf thread?

Yes and your position didn't make sense there either. How is the Ivanhoeitis-carrying parent not exposing their child to the terrible, known danger of Ivanhoeitis?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes and your position didn't make sense there either. How is the Ivanhoeitis-carrying parent not exposing their child to the terrible, known danger of Ivanhoeitis?

Or whatever. Point being, there is nothing they can do to change it-the smoker etc can.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Or whatever. Point being, there is nothing they can do to change it-the smoker etc can.

Sure they can do something to avoid the terrible "injustice" of giving a child Ivanhoeitis; not have the child. How is that less of a choice than not smoking?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sure they can do something to avoid the terrible "injustice" of giving a child Ivanhoeitis; not have the child. How is that less of a choice than not smoking?

So, the handicapped should not procreate? You don't believe that.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
So, the handicapped should not procreate? You don't believe that.

I don't, but the logical outcome of the argument you made in the first post on this page is that they shouldn't be allowed to. Don't you agree? If not, explain why it doesn't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't, but the logical outcome of the argument you made in the first post on this page is that they shouldn't be allowed to. Don't you agree? If not, explain why it doesn't.

One thing more. If the woman has decided to have an abortion, surely drinking, smoking, crack use, whatever, has no bearing. On the other hand, if she wants to have the baby, is she accountable to the State for her behavior during the first trimester if this behaviour leads to a "damaged" child?

There's the post, show how it leads to your conclusion.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
One thing more. If the woman has decided to have an abortion, surely drinking, smoking, crack use, whatever, has no bearing. On the other hand, if she wants to have the baby, is she accountable to the State for her behavior during the first trimester if this behaviour leads to a "damaged" child?

There's the post, show how it leads to your conclusion.

Please, I hate people who duck and dodge. Tecnically, you raised the question in your first post on the page; DoctorScribbles indicated he might hold such a parent criminally liable and then you said this:

I might too, because of such things as intent, prior warnings and so on.
EDIT Which is what you said in your post.

Wanna try again?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't think so, and I'm not sure that I actually endorse my above speculation either. That's why I started this debate - it's sort of a conundrum to me.

I don't think handicapped children are necessarily victims of injustice by virtue of their being born handicapped. However, if a parent has the choice between allowing a child to develop ...[text shortened]... ct of God. A flood victim has not suffered an injustice. Crack addiction is not an act of God.

Sorry didn't see your edit:

DoctorScribbles: Genetic defects are an instance of the legalist's notion of an act of God. A flood victim has not suffered an injustice. Crack addiction is not an act of God

If a parent is aware that they are a carrier of the terrible disease of Ivanhoeitis and still decide to have a child knowing it has a good chance of having the disease, how is that an "Act of God"? If someone with a contagious disease deliberately coughs in someone else's face and the 2nd person catches the disease, is that an "Act of God"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry didn't see your edit:

DoctorScribbles: Genetic defects are an instance of the legalist's notion of an act of God. A flood victim has not suffered an injustice. Crack addiction is not an act of God

If a parent is aware that they are a carrier of the terrible disease of Ivanhoeitis and still decide to have a child knowing ...[text shortened]... oughs in someone else's face and the 2nd person catches the disease, is that an "Act of God"?

An "Act of God", exists for the benefit of insurance companies, certainly nobody can be claiming that any insurance company has a "soul" for God to get "spiritual" about.